[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14457?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15095593#comment-15095593
]
Yu Li commented on HBASE-14457:
-------------------------------
bq. What are the units for throughput on the last table?
As Ted explained, it's a Chinese abbreviation for 10k
bq. Was the network ever saturated in the test?
No, from the monitoring data, network peak is less than 140MB/s, should be ok
for 2Gb network card
Regarding the relatively high average latency, I think it's because there're 16
column qualifier in our test table (to simulate our specific online scenario)
bq. Were flushes ever the bottleneck?
No, didn't observe blocking update in the test
> Umbrella: Improve Multiple WAL for production usage
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-14457
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14457
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Umbrella
> Reporter: Yu Li
> Assignee: Yu Li
> Fix For: 2.0.0, 1.3.0
>
> Attachments: Action in Multiple WAL.pdf, Action in Multiple WAL.pdf
>
>
> HBASE-5699 proposed the idea to run with multiple WAL in regionserver and did
> a great initial work there, but when trying to use it in our production
> cluster, we still found several issues to resolve, like tracking multiple WAL
> paths in replication (HBASE-6617), fixing UT with multiwal provider
> (HBASE-14411), introducing a namespace-based strategy for
> RegionGroupingProvider (HBASE-14456), etc. This is an umbrella including(but
> not limited of) all these works and efforts to make multiple wal ready for
> production usage and give user a clear picture about it.
> Besides the developing works done, I'd also like to share some scenarios and
> testing/online data in this JIRA about our usage/performance of multiple wal,
> to(hopefully) help people better judge whether to enable multiple wal or not
> in their own cluster and what they might gain.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
